The Apron Again

[Supe]

Trevor,

None of the Canonic 5 were "street women" per se. They all, including Eddowes, lived usually in a lodging house and those all had laving facilities.

Don.

[mariab]

having heard of a murder, he was more vigilant at 2.50am. He saw no reason at 2.20am.

Absolutely.

Well she was a prostitute and I imagine she may need wipes

Yeah, makes sense that a prostitute would need wipes to wipe off blood in her trade. Must have been engaged in pretty extreme stuff. :-)

But that was surely relative to those who were able to wash them and re use them I doubt street women were afforded thd luxury to be able do that.

None of the Canonic 5 were "street women" per se. They all, including Eddowes, lived usually in a lodging house and those all had laving facilities.

Like Don said, plus even in From Hell (the Hollywood version) there's a scene where the 4 prossies (all together, as in posse!) wash up in a public sink after having spent a night sleeping outside “on the ropes“. And we all know WHO was a consultant for such (historically accurate) scenes in the movie.

[Tom_Wescott]

Buncha replies

Hello Tom. Thanks for that.

I believe that there was a view that the killer was in a door way, wiping his hands, between his killing Kate and depositing the apron piece.

Hi Lynn. You’re thinking of an unsourced witness telling a press man they saw a man sitting on steps wiping his hands following the Stride murder. They likely saw this, but there’s absolutely no reason to suppose it was the killer (who would not have been bloodied) and was probably a man eating his dinner.

Hello (again) Tom. Ah, so Long was supposed to have missed the piece first time round?

Got it.

That’s the cartel view.

Maria -and your objection to washing ?

If Maria had a euro for every time…

Straightforward and logical...Thank You,Stewart!

It seems that way, but it still boils down to accusing PC Long of dereliction of duty and then lying, so if that’s ‘straightforward and logical’ let’s toss out all the police evidence and just stick to the police reports.

Monty bangs on about this for months and gets labelled 'minimalist' and unwilling to think outside the box.

Stewart states basically the same and its 'Thank you Stewart, straightforward and logical"*

Dismissing evidence without call is certainly ‘thinking outside the box’, in my opinion. I don’t doubt that Stewart saw such behavior during his time on the force, and he may in fact be right about Long, but since there’s not one iota of suspicion here, I don’t see how this logic has been accepted and unchallenged wisdom.

What's funny is that, apart from the “traditional view“ part, SPE and Tom essentially agree about Long's viewing of the apron piece.

You mean we agree that at some point PC Long did in fact see an apron piece in Goulston Street? Yes, we agree on that.

Your view is that of a person with no police experience.

Whoa now. So those of us who aren’t/weren’t cops should just shut up? That would leave just you and Trevor. You sure you want that?

Let's not forget that Long was from another division and there was more than one doorway, all of which looked pretty much the same...

All the more to make a white (or whitish) apron stand out. One wasn’t there at 2:20, then it was there at 2:55.

Inquest testimony of PC Alfred Long

Coroner - Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed?
Long - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.

Coroner - Which did you hear of?
Long- I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.

Now this is in relation to Long having just searched the dwellings after finding the apron piece and about to leave to report his find.

So at 2.55am he is aware of a murder. Not at 2.20am. Therefore, having heard of a murder, he was more vigilant at 2.50am. He saw no reason at 2.20am.

I’m sorry, but I missed the part where he said WHEN he heard about the murder and the ‘rumour’ of the other murder. Might have been 2:15am as well as 2:50am. Knowing what you do about the police of the time, do you think it would have taken an hour for word of the murder to have made it to Goulston Street? I think not. So, your observation rather works in reverse as he may have been more vigilant prior to 2:20am. Frankly, I’m more curious about who was telling him these rumors on his beat.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Swanson's 6th November report

Hello Maria, Tom

re, Long

Chief Inspector Donald Swanson's report dated 6th December 1888 entitled

Facts known to Met. Police, respecting the Murder in Mitre Square & writing on wall
A49301C/8c states as follows:-

"2.20am P.C.254A Long ...stated that at the hour mentioned he visited GOULSTON STREET BUILDINGS, and there was nothing there at that time, but at,
2.55 am he found..." etc.

My emphasis.

1) 6th November WAS a popular day for winding things up in the Met wasnt it?

2) Swanson is crystal clear that Long was at the same building as at 2.55 when talking of his 2.20 visit.

3) he was writing of a Met policeman- A division a temp draft into H division

4) it is stamped HOME OFFICE REC'D 6 NOV

5) He signs the report with the words-

"the foregoing are the FACTS so far as known to Met Police, relating to the murder in Mitre Square.
My emphasis.

So on 6th Nov it was a fact that Long did indeed visit the very same buildings and saw nothing but in the same place 35mins later DID find something.

Are we supposed to assume Swanson, with all the reports in front of him, misunderstood and misread Long's statement? I hardly thìnk so.

Best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

Phil,
are you quite sure about addressing your entire post to me instead of Monty, SPE, Tom, & Co.? (Oops sorry, you just – partly– corrected this.)
I'd have to look up the Swanson report again pertaining to Mitre Square, which I can't right now, awfully busy with my boss, organising the logistics of future trips, and ordering the AFs from N.Y., which includes some complex negotiating.

[Monty]

"I’m sorry, but I missed the part where he said WHEN he heard about the murder and the ‘rumour’ of the other murder. Might have been 2:15am as well as 2:50am. Knowing what you do about the police of the time, do you think it would have taken an hour for word of the murder to have made it to Goulston Street? I think not. So, your observation rather works in reverse as he may have been more vigilant prior to 2:20am. Frankly, I’m more curious about who was telling him these rumors on his beat."

The procedure when a murder had occurred was to issue a telegram to all the stations within the area, including those on the Mets patch and visa versa. I assume, after that, that the runners and Beat Sergeants went out and notified those on the beat, with notifications and instructions to be more vigilant. I certianly know that this was later procedure.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Do Not See

...
Dismissing evidence without call is certainly ‘thinking outside the box’, in my opinion. I don’t doubt that Stewart saw such behavior during his time on the force, and he may in fact be right about Long, but since there’s not one iota of suspicion here, I don’t see how this logic has been accepted and unchallenged wisdom.
...
Whoa now. So those of us who aren’t/weren’t cops should just shut up? That would leave just you and Trevor. You sure you want that?
...
Tom Wescott

I do not see how there is any 'unchallenged wisdom', everyone has their own views and most are not shy in giving those views. I certainly do not go unchallenged.

I believe that I was walking the beat before you were born therefore I think that I may speak with more authority than you on police related matters, pehaps you think that I am wrong? I have also seen the Victorian Metropolitan Police disciplinary books and these are quite an education.

Do not put words into my mouth. I did not say that 'those of us [you] who aren't/weren't cops should just shut up', I never have said that therefore I resent you saying that.

There is much useful and valuable input from many who have no police associations and I would be stupid not to recognise that.

[mariab]

I’m sorry, but I missed the part where he said WHEN he heard about the murder and the ‘rumour’ of the other murder. Might have been 2:15am as well as 2:50am. Knowing what you do about the police of the time, do you think it would have taken an hour for word of the murder to have made it to Goulston Street? I think not. So, your observation rather works in reverse as he may have been more vigilant prior to 2:20am.

The procedure when a murder had occurred was to issue a telegram to all the stations within the area, including those on the Mets patch and visa versa. I assume, after that, that the runners and Beat Sergeants went out and notified those on the beat, with notifications and instructions to be more vigilant.

Monty, could you say at what time PC Long would approximately have started his round which brought him to Mitre Square at 2.15 am? I doubt that it would take less than half an hour from the moment Eddowes' body was found (at 1.45 am) until a telegram was sent to the police stations?

[Stewart P Evans]

Likeliest

Seems your argument is as follows:
1) He simply skipped it at 2.20 but didn't at 2.55.
2) He must have done because the murderer wouldn't have dropped it after 2.20.
3) 1 and 2 should be elevated beyond the alternative because you're an ex policeman and you say so.
Well:
1) I'd quite like to know what made him not skip it at 2.55, and why Long was adamant it wasn't there.
2) He must not have done; there are a few variables. Not least: did he have to return to that area? The police were probably in the immediate vicinity when he left the square - how did he get past them? Did he lie low for a while?
3) I'm a mere accountant, Stewart, with a degree in history, but on the plus side it means I'm a massive fan of valuing and assessing options beyond mere: "he simply skipped it once but not twice". For an historian or an accountant, that simply isn't enough when arriving at a conclusion.

I have described what I feel is the likeliest scenario. That is my opinion and I consider it, at least, an informed opinion.

I have studied the Ripper case and the Victorian police for decades (starting in 1961) and I was a 'sharp end' police officer from 1969 until 1997. What I state, however, I am quick to point out is merely my opinion. You are not obliged to (and obviouly don't) accept my opinion and that is fine by me. I do not presume to tell anyone to accept anything. But, like you, I am within my rights to give my opinion and what I think of other opinions.

Also I did not say 'he simply skipped it once but not twice'. Let's please have a bit of reality here. I am sure that he missed checking many doorways etc. from time to time during his night patrols, as most police officers would have done. It was only when something untoward occurred that they were likely to be caught out.

[Stewart P Evans]

Mean

...
Like Don said, plus even in From Hell (the Hollywood version) there's a scene where the 4 prossies (all together, as in posse!) wash up in a public sink after having spent a night sleeping outside “on the ropes“. And we all know WHO was a consultant for such (historically accurate) scenes in the movie.

I'm just trying to work out what this is supposed to mean.

[mariab]

I'm just trying to work out what this is supposed to mean.

Apologies for the colloquial style. What I meant is, I was wondering if the (accurate) historical information about people in Victorian Whitechapel sleeping outside hanging on ropes and washing up in public sinks as depicted in this movie came from you – or from Mr. Skinner?

[Monty]

Monty, could you say at what time PC Long would approximately have started his round which brought him to Mitre Square at 2.15 am? I doubt that it would take less than half an hour from the moment Eddowes' body was found (at 1.45 am) until a telegram was sent to the police stations?

Maria,

I dont quite understand what you are asking.

Long never went anywhere near Mitre Square. His beat would have started around 9.45pm and ended 6am.

Collard stated this at inquest - At five minutes before two o'clock on Sunday morning last I received information at Bishopsgate-street Police-station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre-square. Information was at once telegraphed to headquarters.

So the first telegraph went to HQ in Jewry St. They inturn would have issued telegraphs to AS. Once these stations had been noted then, as Ive mentioned, the news would have been spread to all Beat Bobbies in the area. This either by spare PCs, runners or Beat Sergeants.

Collard states he had heard of Eddowes murder at 1.55am and immediately issued the telegraph. Long states he had heard of the murder by 2.55am. I think the question you are asking is how soon would Long have been notified?

Im not sure he would have heard by 2.20am, that to me, what with the practicalities, is too early.

Monty

[mariab]

Monty,
shoot, I meant of course Goulston, not Mitre Square. Many apologies. (I'm working non stop since 5.00 am, trying to reach my boss who's MIA about an urgent matter and simultaneously taking care of some other urgent crap in Paris where someone –not me– has messed up big time.)
Thank you so much for corroborating that 2.15am would have probably been too early for PC Long to have been informed about the murder, even if the telegram was sent at 1.55am.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello FM,

Thanks fos the reply.
According to the Official written inquest statements records, kept in writing at The Corporation of London Records Office, Sequira said-

"I was CALLED ON the 30th September at 5 to 2 and was the firt medical man to arrive"
"Life had not been extinct more than a quarter of an hour"

My emphasis

the testimony given verbally at the inquest is given by the Times. Here, Sequira says-
...as above with the addition
" .first to arrive , being on the scene of the murder at 5 mins to 2, "

Now when Brown was "called upon" in his written testimony, it was " shortly after 2 o'clock. I reached about 18mins past two" ' same verbally.

Watkins states that Holland arrived, followed by Sequiera, and that Inspector Collard arrived "about 2" ( verbal and written)

Collard states he arrived "two or three mins PAST 2"
(written and verbally.


CALLED ON means when he was alerted. Sequiera lived locally at 34 Jewry St Aldgate. Unless he sprouted wings and got there in seconds, he simply cannot have been both "called on" and "arrive" at the same time. I estimate it took him 4 or 5 mins to arrive. collard "followed hìm" at "2 or 3mins after 2"
That tells me that Sequira arrived 1.59 or 2.00. That still puts Watkins and Morris' time out and taking 15mins off, time of death at 1,44 or 1,45,

best wishes

Phìl

Hello Phil,

Wasn't aware of the other report stating 'called on' at 1.55. Thanks for educating me.

Well, I suppose then, we have a slight disagreement in that Brown felt it could have been committed at 1.40.

The better news is that both agree that she hadn't been dead long, i.e. they enchance the possibility of Lawende's man being Jack.

[John Bennett]

Apologies for the colloquial style. What I meant is, I was wondering if the (accurate) historical information about people in Victorian Whitechapel sleeping outside hanging on ropes and washing up in public sinks as depicted in this movie came from you – or from Mr. Skinner?

I don't think the characters in 'From Hell' were sleeping on ropes outside, Maria.

They were most surely in a doss-house.